Literature DB >> 15647812

Recalculation of the NHANES database SD improves T-score agreement and reduces osteoporosis prevalence.

Neil Binkley1, Gary M Kiebzak, E Michael Lewiecki, Diane Krueger, Ronald E Gangnon, Paul D Miller, John A Shepherd, Marc K Drezner.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: In attempt to improve diagnostic agreement between manufacturers, a recent software update incorporated NHANES III data in GE Lunar densitometers. As a result, the femur neck and trochanter T-scores were lowered, and osteoporosis prevalence was increased. Use of a recalculated young-normal SD for the GE Lunar-adjusted NHANES III database improved diagnostic agreement and is recommended.
INTRODUCTION: Use of manufacturer-specific normative databases for T-score derivation leads to discordance in T-score values and differences in diagnostic classification. To address this issue, the International Committee for Standards in Bone Measurement (ICSBM) recommended the NHANES III database for femur T-score derivation. Acquired on Hologic (Hol) instruments, this database requires conversion equations for application to other DXA systems. NHANES III total femur (TF) conversions for GE Lunar (GE) have previously been available, and femoral neck (FN) and trochanter (TR) equations were reported recently. Per the ICSBM recommendation, GE Lunar incorporated these values into their female database. This should produce T-score and diagnostic agreement between Hol and GE instruments; however, this has not been evaluated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared GE femur scans in 115 postmenopausal women using software before and after the NHANES III software update. Subsequently, T-scores derived from femur scans obtained on GE and Hol densitometers were compared in a different group of 89 postmenopausal women.
RESULTS: The NHANES III software update had no effect on measured BMD (g/cm2) at any femur region. However, because of changes in values used for T-score calculation (increase in the mean young-normal BMD at the FN and TR and a reduction in SD at the TR), the T-scores were lower (mean, 0.48 and 0.68, respectively) at the FN and TR using post-NHANES III software. Consequently, this update increased femur osteoporosis prevalence in these 115 women from 7.8% to 18.3%. Comparison of GE with Hol total proximal femur T-scores revealed a minimal difference (<0.1) and equal diagnoses of osteoporosis. FN and TR differences were larger, with mean GE T-scores lower than Hol (p < 0.001) by 0.17 and 0.50, respectively, thereby introducing osteoporosis diagnostic disagreement (13 [GE] versus 9 [Hol]). Our evaluation suggested that this disparity resulted from direct application of published NHANES III SDs at the FN and TR. As such, we applied the conversion formulae to the NHANES III published Hologic data and found the FN and TR SDs were greater than assumed by GE. Using our recalculated SD to derive T-scores reduced the mean GE/Hol T-score difference to 0.03 at the FN and 0.32 at the TR and resolved osteoporosis diagnostic disagreement.
CONCLUSION: The GE NHANES III software update leads to lower FN and TR T-scores than obtained with Hol or prior GE software. Recalculation of the young-normal SD reduces this difference and is recommended. Clinicians are advised to avoid using the TR for diagnosis or, at a minimum, use caution when making treatment decisions based solely on T-score at this site.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15647812     DOI: 10.1359/JBMR.041115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  31 in total

1.  Validation of a case definition for osteoporosis disease surveillance.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix; M S Yogendran
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  A comparative study of using non-hip bone density inputs with FRAX®.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix; H Johansson; A Oden; E McCloskey; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Competing mortality and fracture risk assessment.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix; X Wu
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Effects of anti-resorptive agents on trabecular bone score (TBS) in older women.

Authors:  M A Krieg; B Aubry-Rozier; D Hans; W D Leslie
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Quantitative heel ultrasound in a population-based study in Italy and its relationship with fracture history: the ESOPO study.

Authors:  S Maggi; M Noale; S Giannini; S Adami; D Defeo; G Isaia; L Sinigaglia; P Filipponi; G Crepaldi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-09-02       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Prediction of hip and other osteoporotic fractures from hip geometry in a large clinical cohort.

Authors:  W D Leslie; P S Pahlavan; J F Tsang; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Bone mineral density at the hip in Norwegian women and men--prevalence of osteoporosis depends on chosen references: the Tromsø Study.

Authors:  Nina Emaus; Tone K Omsland; Luai Awad Ahmed; Guri Grimnes; Monica Sneve; Gro K Berntsen
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  The effects of a FRAX revision for the USA.

Authors:  J A Kanis; H Johansson; A Oden; B Dawson-Hughes; L J Melton; E V McCloskey
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Factors predicting osteoporosis treatment initiation in a regionally based cohort.

Authors:  A Cranney; J F Tsang; W D Leslie
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-12-19       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Fibroblast growth factor 23, bone mineral density, and risk of hip fracture among older adults: the cardiovascular health study.

Authors:  Anna Jovanovich; Petra Bùzková; Michel Chonchol; John Robbins; Howard A Fink; Ian H de Boer; Bryan Kestenbaum; Ronit Katz; Laura Carbone; Jennifer Lee; Gail A Laughlin; Kenneth J Mukamal; Linda F Fried; Michael G Shlipak; Joachim H Ix
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 5.958

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.